I'm all for dismantling IDP for its variability of length unlike that which is required of other professionals who have internships. Really, the others have nothing like this. I support an educational requirement as low as 4 years, which is the same time needed for a degree in basket weaving or an "Mrs." degree, attending university to locate a husband. And, no, I didn't coin that term.

The only party or parties that could bring a lawsuit would be ones who could demonstrate injury. Who would that be? What's your legal theory?

A couple of issues: (a) IDP is not reasonable, it is variable in length, and it places an undue burden on interns, in terms of time, money, and attaining professional status, (b) it is not comparable to other professions who train qualified people within a finite time period, (c) it is not verifiable and is on the "honor system," and (d) the old system worked just fine, with states overlapping each other in implementing it, and no tangible evidence that an architect licensed under IDP is any better than one trained in a finite time period, since most licensed people start stamping some 8 to 12 years after they finish university anyway.

IDP places an undue burden on interns, and yet every year hundreds of interns are able to attain licensure. So how "undue" of a "burden" is it, really?
I'm not opposed to improving IDP, but the effort has to be based on real issues, not just that it's a pain in the ass.

What's wrong with returning to flat 3 years for professional degree and 5 years for non-professional degree? I licensed with 3 years of experience, seeing that IDP was kicking in, but I did IDP anyway. The yearly fee to maintain an IDP file, on intern-ish type wages, categories not coming in, and then getting little report cards with above average/average/below average on several questions, as interpreted by the person you report to. Please. I took me about 8 years to finish IDP because I was honest to a tee but then, I already had a license. I would code all my time sheets and reported quarterly. There were periods were I was reporting 2.25 or 1.75 units/hours on building cost and materials/specifications, for example. Again, considering that most people start stamping drawings so much later, the two methods converge, realistically, and one is much cheaper and simpler. And, good God, I've got people on here who support IDP (which has been documented to take 5 to 7 years per that linked study) yet think I'm an ass hole for suggesting the 4 year BA/BS in Arch. as a minimum baseline, together with the old fashioned start-to-finish internship?

It probably more important to find a lawyer who is interested. many interns will join a case action lawsuit because there is no cost to them and the potential for gain. The lawyer will be the one taking the risk.

Architects can't get together on anything. IDP was force-fed to interns by a "lobby" because they are the least likely to push back, with many just bumbling their way into practice and many of whom continue to work in architecture yet never license. Most architects don't even know the various educational options into the profession. I've been asked by a B.Arch. why I got a M.Arch. instead of another bachelor's degree. Well, I can get through in 3 years ... or get through in 5 years, and not carry a full load each term because the general ed. requirements were already fulfilled. You think you can organize interns across the country to come down on NCARB? Doubtful. Most new graduates are more interested in eating granola and/or vegan, their hemp, their recycling and composting, and making sure they have the latest coolest glasses. Just joking. But we all know those who are out to make these (useless) personal statements.

Interns would bring up the case....the harm is economic hardship and violation of due process. There have been several cases against professional protectionism. When they get to the higher courts they almost always win unless an absolute benefit to the public can be proven. Since most of these regulations are not brought into effect in a reactionary way, "protecting the public" is often impossible to prove. My sis, who is a lawyer said that IDP would be rulled unconstitutional based on the 14th amendment...Not sure how exactly, but she is a sharp lawyer and is 99% certain that IDP in part or in whole would be shot down in the high courts. There are even lawyers that specifically fight these battles. If the barriers to entry are unnecessary and do not contribute to protecting the public but rather protect the license inorder to increase fees, that is protectionism and it is unlawful. Many parts of the IDP requirements are not specific privilages of the license, and threrfore are not necessary barriers to entry. Business administration is not a privilage of the license and poor business administration creates no real danger to the public..

entrepreneurship is not a civil right, so I don't see how the 14th amendment is relevant. Is the point here that you are too smart to do IDP and want to take your exam already? Will you start another class action once you are licensed and argue against continuing education? A license is a privilege and you knew that when you signed up. I am sure that wherever you went to school or during your research before obtaining your degree were told that these were the rules of the game. We can all point to specific deficiencies in IDP, however, just like LEED, its become its own bureaucracy and now we are stuck with it. The broader goals both reduced to the minutiae of process and "legalism" becomes the only way to enforce it. I would spend my efforts on setting up a class action against Autodesk

The real question is would you file before or after you got your license?

That's what makes it hard to do. The practitioner who works can't champion this cause. The student has neither the resources nor the time. No one balked at the timed internship. It was done this way for years. It was similar for engineers, who were and are still called EITs (engineers in training) until they get their PE stamp. IDP is a huge disadvantage to interns. The employing architect does not know how a project and its tasks, let alone the distribution of tasks, will shake out. It is, therefore, a major inconvenience for the employer to tailor the distribution of work so interns can knock out IDP categories like bowling pins. Similarly, it could make an employee an irritant to an employer if he or she tells them "I need this and this and this to complete IDP." They will tell the intern to stuff it, and go work elsewhere. When I was doing IDP, the generation before had no clue what it entailed, glanced over the forms with the hours filled in, and signed off on them. Nobody wins here except NCARB, and the departments they've created to administer this thing, as if managing the ARE and NCARB certificates isn't enough. The employer, the intern, and the public don't win.

The key issue here is the professional judgment in taking the responsibility for designing and documenting a project by affixing the architect's stamp and signature. The experience with and timing by which an architect decides to take on this serious responsibility is what really impacts the health, safety, and welfare of the public. It sure as hell isn't 80 hours of telling the kids at your HS how to become an architect or picking up errant pieces of 2x4s at a Habitat for Humanity site.

I also believe that there is a false promise that IDP and licensure gives you all the tools needed to go out and start stamping drawings. In my experience, you need at least 10 year out of school (and assuming you get licensed quickly and have a chance to use it soon after) to begin to comprehend how all of the issues are interrelated and how the business side impacts the technical, creative and practice side. If anything, the licensing should be ore similar to the PE's in that there is a certain amount of knowledge that is better suited to learn and test after school (because everyone was awake during Site Planning right?) and another part 2 of the exam to be taken after internship. This would allow those two years to focus in depth on more important skills and experience without the burden of rehashing the accreditation requirements.

I was not aware the PE exam was split that way. However, I am almost certain their training period is finite. Given that they generally lack that artistic temperament and mercurial side, they can organize themselves, and their profession, better. I totally agree that, for architects, it take about 10 years +/- to know how a complex project goes together and how everything in integrated. For a really complex project, I'd say it takes even longer.

IDP is not a requirement for licensure in many states. State boards make up NCARB.
You want to change IDP by going after NCARB, why not try going after AIA? They are the ones more culpable in holding back interns, they have a code of ethics, and the code of ethics does nothing to mandate that member firms are obligated to provide the necessary training, or suffer some kind censure. Short of that, you could try banging your head into a brick cavity wall with CPU back up.

this is silly. each state regulates it's own professions. ncarb is ONE example of a model set of criteria that, yes, a lot of states have adopted. so, even if you could prove standing, what you're really asking the state to do is essentially de-regulate the professions and eliminate any barriers to declaring yourself a 'professional' in x, y or z.

entrepreneurship is not a civil right, so I don't see how the 14th amendment is relevant

Due process is a civil right. Ones ability and right to enter any market is violated when the barriers to entry are unattainable and overly burdensome. They are unattainable when the requirements create economic hardship, and when no alternative routes are available. The system does not ensure a fair due process for all interns equally. The problem is the mixing of state mandates and private businesses. It is unfair for architects and interns. The system creates a dependency on future competitors which is also a violation because it creates a heavily biased process, hence violating ones fair due process. I am not a lawyer, but from what others have told me, due process is violated when barriers to entry into a profession are unnecessary and overly burdensome. Recently a case was ruled against the interior design license board. NCARB testified against them. They argued that licensure for interior design was overly burdensome and it violated the 14th amendment by creating barriers to entry that were too burdensome. The judge ruled that creating mandatory licensure for interior designers was unconstitutional under the 14th amendment. He also stated that the state cannot regulate the arts, and since design is an art, it would violate the 1st amendment. The legal theory gets complicated, but I am sure a case like this would have real weight in court.

My suggestion is for the govt to take advantage of incredibly low interest rates and spend like mad on infrastructure.

well... we don't really need any new highways. what other infrastructure is there? the socialist/agenda 21 urban ones (with bigger returns on taxpayer investment)? why would we want to fund that? I prefer us slowly sliding into 3rd world status.

@jla-x: "the barriers to entry are unattainable and overly burdensome"

"unattainable" -- perhaps you should research for yourself how many architects have managed to obtain licensure in the US since IDP was first introduced in 1976. I think you will find that the number is quite large.

"overly" is a judgement call -- you obviously feel that IDP is "overly burdensome" -- many others have managed to make it through the process, so I think it will be hard to make an "overly burdensome" claim stick.

@jla-x: "...the state cannot regulate the arts, and since design is an art..." the "state" does not regulate architecture on an aesthetic basis, but solely on the "health, safety and welfare" aspects of architectural design. This is a legitimate thing for the state to regulate, much as it does with medicine and engineering. Much of the "ID licensure" debate hinges on whether what interior designers do has much impact on the HSW aspects of the final project. IMO, the jury is still out on that one.

IDP is not a requirement for licensure in many states. State boards make up NCARB.

It is a requirement in most states. Some states have softened, in that they will admit to the ARE prior to full completion of IDP (one such state is FL). Both CA and WA, which do not require a degree, require IDP. If there is a list of which states still use a finite internship period, I'd like to see it.

The variability of time, the different required experiences and opportunities to get these experiences, and the friction it can cause between an employer who is trying to run a business and an intern seeking specific tasks is the undue burden. The problem is so obvious.

I don't have a problem with IDP in itself, but there should be a limit put on it. So in a perfect world situation, if an intern can complete IDP within the 2.69 years, then he/she is eligable to get license. If you aren't able to complete your IDP requirements, say after 5 years you can test/get license. (BTW, 5 years is just an arbitrary number).

I would argue that the NCARB certificate puts an overly burdensome restriction on some existing architects. Not every licensed architect qualifies for an NCARB certificate, and therefore those architects cannot compete across state lines for work. My understanding is that the success rate for getting the NCARB cetrificate through the "broadly experienced program" is only about 30% and is a very subjective process.

The NCARB certificate is indeed a problem. One who is licensed in CA, who has a 4 year degree, CANNOT obtain a stamp in adjacent NV and OR, which require accredited degrees. The issue is that the NCARB certificate requires the HIGHEST common denominator "NAAB degree (or foreign equivalent) + IDP + exam (obvious)" to meet qualifications for licensure in all 50 states, US territories, and possibly even all the Canadian provinces.

See my thread that pissed off even educators, for God's sake, even educatorsthemselves, about earning, as a minimum, a 4 year degree. My solution is real simple. Have all jurisdictions adopt the following model:

It basically says that "if you chose to go to any architectural program, graduate, get up in the morning and go to work without worrying about these ridiculous report cards for a prescribed number of years, and can pass the ARE, then we'll make you an architect."

The stupid foreign certificate evaluation (EESA) required by NAAB is a whopping $1900. Isnt that what more architects make per month (kidding). Thankfully CA does not need this stupid expensive evaluation...

The variability of time, the different required experiences and opportunities to get these experiences, and the friction it can cause between an employer who is trying to run a business and an intern seeking specific tasks is the undue burden. The problem is so obvious.

Exactly!

Not every licensed architect qualifies for an NCARB certificate, and therefore those architects cannot compete across state lines for work

Yup! and that is a form of protectionism.

the "state" does not regulate architecture on an aesthetic basis, but solely on the "health, safety and welfare" aspects of architectural design. This is a legitimate thing for the state to regulate, much as it does with medicine and engineering.

No problem with reasonable regulations, but if you think it is reasonable for an architecture license to take longer on average than a MD you are dillusional. Our profession is not as dangerous to the public as we like to think. Also, there are already codes, engineering stams, inspections.....The regulations are redundent. The regulations are also a benefit to existing licensed architects more than they are to the public. Regulations are not there to limit competition or to protect the baby boomers. Regulations are only there to protect the public. It would be very difficult to prove that IDP has been a benefit to the public. If one looked at malpractice, injurries, etc....before and after IDP I would be shocked if there is any difference. Regulations that are put into place in a non-reactionary way should be held to the scrutiny of the courts to determine whether they are protectionist or actually serve a public good.

observant, one of my friends just finished her PE exams, and she did not even need a professional evaluation certificate. The fact that she had done her masters here in the US was proof that she had completed bachelors in another country. The same, somehow does not apply for architecture candidates.

I didn't know that. I assume that, in some cases, a professional or graduate degree granted in the States might make a regulating body think that the preceding degree granted in another country was already put under the microscope, so to speak.

I have several P.E. friends and do not know their journeys. I do know that a S.E. exam follows a P.E. exam, though.

FWIW, in my world there's not a lot of evidence to suggest that there's ANY real shortage of competition in this profession. For many years [decades] now, competition for work has been intense, has been increasing, and has served only to erode fees to the point where the economics of professional practice suck.

distant, fees are not eroded by inside competition. Fees have been eroded by failure to adapt to a changing market and branch into new territories. Adaptation = survival. In order to adapt, we need a more dynamic and creative flow of entrapenuers. Young entrapenuers could help to expand the profession into new territories, and possibly take back ones that were lost to other professions like sfr. Young entrapenuers are more willing and able to take risks in new markets. They are more willing and able to take a 500 dollar landscape design, or a small remodel. Less overhead and less constraints of adult life. Lets say upon graduation we were able to take a test and get licensed like in law. Do you really think that we would be taking big projects away from experianced architects? NO we would be doing small projects that are probably exempt anyway for years and years....Lawyers do minor criminal cases for years before they get that high profile mob case. The market will regulate itself. Also, our clients are usually rich business savy people. No one is going to hand over a 100 million dollar tower to a newely minted architect. There are many hypothetical senarios that you can bring up, but the truth is that 99.99999% of the time only the very experianced will get the projects that can do any real damage. My beef with NCARB is part personal, but mostly I really care about the future of the profession, and I feel that some deregulation would do us all good.

99% of the population cannot afford an architect. 99% of the population is a big friggin market! The older licensed architects and the big firms will never be able to tap this market because it is just not profitable for them. Because of that, others will fill the void from other professions and we will continue to lose ground. Why not ease up the tilte protection a bit so that the profession can grow?

There's a lot in the above post. I, too, have an issue with NCARB and IDP because I passed the exam so quickly in one state, and licensed, and got a NCARB certificate so much later for another state. I have an issue with states mandating IDP but not requiring an education, because all one needs to do is see how many people (here) are biting their nails as they await acceptance decisions to B.Archs., M.Arch.2s, and especially M.Arch 3s.

The other problem is that so many small practitioners, and even medium sized ones, are either not purchasing errors and omissions insurance, or they are not purchasing a substantial enough policy which will cover them. That's a function of economies of scale and spreading costs.

Actually, most state laws are fairly restrictive as to what needs to be signed off by an architect. Basically, it's everything other than dwellings (possibly of a certain size), more than a specific number of units clustered together or if in a development, some farm or out buildings, and some structures not intended for habitation. (It's been a while, so I might be rusty with the list). That means that a 6-plex, an apartment complex, and anything commercial have to be sealed by an architect. True, this means that most custom homes do not require an architect. Many homes in the 2,500 to 3,500 sf range are designed by residential designers or drafters. Some of them indeed turn out nice work, especially if they've been at it for a while.

A lot of it is a perception issue. The general public thinks architects are awash in money. The consuming public (savvy developers and institutional builders) know that they will undercut each others' fees. Fortunately, there is some movement toward qualifications based awarding of contracts, both for design and construction. There is also some movement away from lump-sum bids for construction contracts, where the builder eats it and then tries to pinch with change orders and has everyone pointing fingers. Architectural drawings cannot be 100% correct. It is almost impossible to produce that level of perfection, especially as the project increases in size. However, if a client gets an architect that moves production along quickly and generates a set of CDs that is 97% to 98% "correct," all parties should be kissing the ground.

The perception problem is handed down: you are a bohemian nothing in school, you are a bohemian nothing as an intern, and then maybe you might command some respect if you either license or have been a job captain (what a term - sounds like he/she needs a green eye shade or a conductor's cap) for 20 years in the same office. With the shorter lifespans of practices, this is less likely to happen. To some extent, restricting entry is one of the ways to go, but it will only make a small dent in the problem. To a larger extent, firms need to become both more technically competent and do a better job of marketing themselves.

supply and demand. that's what it comes down to. You can limit supply or try to increase demand. Unfortunatly most people are willing to take the easy route and limit supply. Like I said, 99% of the market is fair game. Expanding into these less glamourous but essential markets will expand the territory, thus expand our influence and value in society.

"99% of the population cannot afford an architect. 99% of the population is a big friggin market!"

So, let me see if I'm getting this right ... there's this huge "friggin" market out there than can't afford to pay for our services ... so, you want to make it easier for even more people to practice architecture ... that's going to make everything better for everybody ... right ?

file, what I'm saying is more young entrapenuers with the title architect will be better for the industry than simply letting these markets slip further into the hands of other industries, and letting other titles emerge that fill the void.

This would expand the grounds of the profession. Take a look at what chefs are doing. New young chefs have the freedom to explore other markets and create small businesses that cater to the everyday person. They open up food trucks, small catering businesses, etc. If they had to go through all the hoops that we have to go through, I am sure it would stiffle such small businesses. After 10 years of interning, the chef would be less willing and able to take risks in new markets or to regain old ones like street food, fast food, etc.....In turn, others would fill that market and dominate it because of an overall lack of competition in that market. Mcdonalds and pizzahut are slowely losing ground in cities (like S.F) where deregulation had made small entrapenuership easier. A ban or limit on street vending almost always is followed by a rise in corporate fast food. Look at NY. This is a fact. The young entrapenuer chef will create a better product for a competitive price. The young chef cares about quality. The mcdonalds does not. The young architect cares about quality. The builder does not. People will choose quality if there are options available. In architecture, no options are available to the everyday person. By over regulating the industry, architects are diminishing their relevance and standing in society. They are creating outside competition by shrinking the industry into a more exclusive market. Also, young entrapenuers are the testing grounds for new ideas. They will pop in and out of existance. They provide the necessary rapid mutations that are essential to adaptation in changing times. You fail to adapt you go extinct....Darwin 101.

I am not against all regulation. I am just against regulation that makes no sense. For one, lets mandate a maximum carbon foot print for all new construction. Lets control the quality of the architecture rather than wasting time trying to control the quality of the next architect and their right to practice. If we create higher building standards, we increase the value of those who know how to meet them.

Increase the value and neccessity of your knowledge instead of the value and neccessity of your stamp! People will be more willing to pay for neccessary knowledge than for a seemingly beurocratic stamp.

If your primary goal is to provide design services to the underserved "99% of the population" then I don't see where a license is even required and why we're having this conversation. Surely, that underserved "99% of the population" isn't going to need much more than single family residential design services or interior design services - neither of which require a license to provide. If you're such a hot shot "entrapenuer", what's stopping you from going after this market already? It's certainly not the lack of a license.

I am not against all regulation. I am just against regulation that makes no sense. For one, lets mandate a maximum carbon foot print for all new construction. Lets control the quality of the architecture rather than wasting time trying to control the quality of the next architect and their right to practice. If we create higher building standards, we increase the value of those who know how to meet them.

i agree, mandating a carbon footprint for new construction is regulation that makes no sense.

file, lol, I never said I was a hot shot. All of these constructive forums always get thrown off by assumtions like yours that any beef someone has with the system is automatically personal and has some selfish motive behind it. Everyone with a complaint is not always fueled by lazyness or a self inflated ego. I just happen to believe that "a rising tide lifts all boats."

If you want to attack me on a personal level than go for it. I really don't care. If you want to offer something of substance then we can debate.

Frac, I was kinda just giving an example of a regulation that would have an effect on buildings rather than people....I haven't thought about that specific regulation enough to really say whether I would be for or against it. Out of curiosity, why do you oppose that?

Our industry is based on navigating regulations. Why create more? Even in school, the premise of the program or constraints of the site were a form of regulation. That's what we as architects do. And this whole discussion of the small projects-big impact is a ruse because in most municipalities and states you do not need a stamp/seal by an architect for a small project and for most small residential projects. When I say small I say under $50,000. so what is stopping this pent up herd of unlicensed architects that you say is out there? Maybe its that clients would rather risk their property with someone who has been able to at a minimum set a goal, worked for it and passed a licensing exam than someone who is trying to navigate outside the professonal standard of care.

first off - why NCARB? your issue is with the individual state boards. NCARB basically just facilitates the license process and provides a basic standard that states can buy in (or not). no one is holding a gun to the state board's head saying they are forced to use NCARB.

IMO - the real issue is that some states require a path that makes it difficult for its residents to fulfill without significant financial hardship (i.e. no public education options or even any options within state - or only options are internationally focused and extremely selective) - This makes access into to the profession a lot harder for someone who comes from limited means - which is pretty much the only thing I'm concerned about.

I'd probably switch to "education + experience only" if ALL states had a low-cost public institution that offered a professional degree. right now initial access to the profession is increasingly becoming "pay-to-play" - which I think causes us to lose out on smart people who will go to other more lucrative professions.

first off - why NCARB? your issue is with the individual state boards. NCARB basically just facilitates the license process and provides a basic standard that states can buy in (or not). no one is holding a gun to the state board's head saying they are forced to use NCARB.

I'd probably switch to "education + experience only" if ALL states had a low-cost public institution that offered a professional degree. right now initial access to the profession is increasingly becoming "pay-to-play" - which I think causes us to lose out on smart people who will go to other more lucrative professions.

NCARB can be trimmed back in a big way. Essentially, they can be trimmed back to a) administer the ARE, and b) create the agreed-upon blueprint for common licensing. In other occupations, there is NO NCARB. States just swap licensure information between themselves. Florida used to allow a non NCARB swap in. I don't know if they still do. Some don't.

Absolutely. I am all foreasy "BA/BS + 5, and BArch/MArch + 3." As for public education, this is rarely a concern. I can only think of a few states which are too small to provide vast public education options, such as WY, SD, DE, and ME. For states who do not have all the education options, there are usually in-state courtesies extended to residents of adjacent rural states. Practically every state has a public architecture school. Some minimal growth states, like OK and KS, have TWO. I'm not buying the "I was too valuable at 18 or 19 to my employer that I couldn't go to school." Those cases are extremely rare. Your innate talent will not wither. In fact, with a 4 yr degree, you will get to do what you want in studio, as well as become more well-rounded. (My SAT to GRE scores soared, and someone told me it was a fact that I opened the books in college, but was too lazy to do so in HS). Also, that employer that has such esteem for the 18 or 19 year old will "reserve" a place for them. Many people go directly to these employers after graduation.

j-lax, I want to see you open your own little practice. Do you live in a place with basements? You can get jobs doing basement refinishes. Work your way up to additions, pop tops, then to small commercial. If you get stuck, just ask questions here. Sorry if this is too practical for you, but I would like to see you succeed.